Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The intuition that Bush 'might not have existed' is fully... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The Linsky-Zalta-Williamson position that necessarily everything necessarily exists is only as plausible as its explanation of the intuitive contingency of ordinary objects.

    The intuition that Bush 'might not have existed' is fully accommodated as the truth that Bush might have been non-concrete, not non-existent.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Concreteness and existence are logically distinct properties; something can exist abstractly without being concrete.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modal intuitions about non-existence are often confused; reinterpreting them as concreteness variation preserves intuitive content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This framework avoids counterintuitive commitment that merely possible objects don't exist in any sense whatsoever.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The intuition 'Bush might not have existed' semantically targets existence itself, not the derivative property of concreteness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Redefining non-existence as non-concreteness obscures rather than illuminates what makes modal statements about people meaningful.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Abstract objects (numbers, propositions) don't satisfy 'might not have existed' intuitions, so non-concreteness doesn't capture the modal sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPersonal Identity1 linked

    Related

    Abstract objects (numbers, propositions) don't satisfy 'might not have existed' ...Concreteness and existence are logically distinct properties; something can exis...Modal intuitions about non-existence are often confused; reinterpreting them as ...Redefining non-existence as non-concreteness obscures rather than illuminates wh...
    +3 moreShow less
    The Linsky-Zalta-Williamson position that necessarily everything necessarily exi...The intuition 'Bush might not have existed' semantically targets existence itsel...This framework avoids counterintuitive commitment that merely possible objects d...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit